circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation in New York

2025Further, "the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation" ( Paulman , 5 NY3d at 130 ), in which the officer asked defendant a handful of questions in a nonthreatening manner, were not of the sort to indelibly taint any subsequent statement.

2025Further, "the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation" ( Paulman , 5 NY3d at 130), in which the officer asked defendant a handful of questions in a nonthreatening manner, were not of the sort to indelibly taint any subsequent statement.

2024Some of the factors that New York courts have considered include the time differential between the Miranda violation and the subsequent admission; whether the same police personnel were present and involved in eliciting each statement; whether there was a change in the location or nature of the interrogation; the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation, such as the extent of the improper questioning; and whether, prior to the Miranda violation, the defendant had indicated a willingness to speak to the police ( see White , 10 NY3d at 291 ; Paulman , 5 NY3d at 130-131 ).

2016To determine whether a warned statement is sufficiently attenuated from an unwarned one, courts consider a number of factors, including “the time differential between the Miranda violation and the subsequent admission; whether the same police personnel were present and involved in eliciting each statement; whether there was a change in the location or nature of the interrogation; the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation, such as the extent of the improper questioning; and whether, prior to the Miranda violation, defendant had indicated a willingness to speak to police” (Paulman, 5 N

2023"To determine whether there is a 'single continuous chain of events,'" we may consider "a number of factors, including. . . the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation. . . ." ( id. at 130 ). "[E]ach case must be viewed on its unique facts" and "[t]he purpose of the inquiry is to assess where there was a sufficiently 'definite, pronounced break in the interrogation' to dissipate the taint from the Miranda violation" ( id. at 131 , quoting People v Chapple , 38 NY2d 112, 115 [1975]).

2015The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there was a “definite, pronounced break in questioning sufficient to return the defendant to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning” (People v Sedunova, 83 AD3d 965, 967 [2011]; see People v Celleri, 29 AD3d 707, 708 [2006]; People v Johnson, 79 AD2d 617, 618 [1980]; see also People v Paulman, 5 NY3d at 131 ; People v Chapple, 38 NY2d at 115 ).

2022"To determine whether those [subsequently administered] Miranda warnings were effective in protecting [the] defendant's rights or whether the subsequent [oral and[*6]] written statement[s] [were] part of a 'single continuous chain of events' requiring [their] suppression, courts look to numerous factors, 'including the time differential between the Miranda violation and the subsequent admission[s]; whether the same police personnel were present and involved in eliciting each statement; whether there was a change in the location or nature of the interrogation; the circumstances surrounding the

2019To establish whether the "subsequent written statement was part of a single continuous chain of events requiring its suppression, courts look to numerous factors, including the time differential between the Miranda violation and the subsequent admission; whether the same police personnel were present and involved in eliciting each statement; whether there was a change in the location or nature of the interrogation; the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation, such as the extent of the improper questioning; and whether, prior to the Miranda violation, the defendant had indicated a willi

2025Moreover, "[t]he term 'interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response" ( People v. Ferro , 63 NY2d 316, 322 [1984], cert. denied 472 US 1007 [1985], quoting Rhode Island v. Innis , 446 US 291, 301 [1980]).

2025In determining whether a subsequent statement made after Miranda warnings were given was part of a "single continuous chain of events," the court considers various factors including [*3]"whether the same police personnel were present and involved in eliciting each statement; whether there was a change in the location or nature of the interrogation; the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation, such as the extent of the improper questioning; and whether, prior to the Miranda violation, defendant had indicated a willingness to speak to police" People v. Rodriguez , 132 AD3d 781, 783 , (20

2025In determining whether a subsequent statement made after Miranda warnings were given was part of a "single continuous chain of events," the court considers various factors including [*3]"whether the same police personnel were present and involved in eliciting each statement; whether there was a change in the location or nature of the interrogation; the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation, such as the extent of the improper questioning; and whether, prior to the Miranda violation, defendant had indicated a willingness to speak to police" People v. Rodriguez , 132 AD3d 781, 783 , (20

2025Moreover, "[t]he term 'interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response" ( People v. Ferro , 63 NY2d 316, 322 [1984], cert. denied 472 US 1007 [1985], quoting Rhode Island v. Innis , 446 US 291, 301 [1980]).

2022County Court deemed all of the hearing witnesses credible, and we defer to that finding ( see People v Davis , 196 AD3d at 921).

2016To determine whether those late Miranda warnings were effective in protecting defendant’s rights or whether the subsequent written statement was part of a “single continuous chain of events” requiring its suppression, courts look to numerous factors, “including the time differential between the Miranda violation and the subsequent admission; whether the same police personnel were present and involved in eliciting each statement; whether there was a change in the location or nature of the interrogation; the circumstances surrounding the Miranda violation, such as the extent of the improper ques

2015The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there was a “definite, pronounced break in questioning sufficient to return the defendant to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning” (People v Sedunova, 83 AD3d 965, 967 [2011]; see People v Celleri, 29 AD3d 707, 708 [2006]; People v Johnson, 79 AD2d 617, 618 [1980]; see also People v Paulman, 5 NY3d at 131 ; People v Chapple, 38 NY2d at 115 ).

2015The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there was a “definite, pronounced break in questioning sufficient to return the defendant to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning” (People v Sedunova, 83 AD3d 965, 967 [2011]; see People v Celleri, 29 AD3d 707, 708 [2006]; People v Johnson, 79 AD2d 617, 618 [1980]; see also People v Paulman, 5 NY3d at 131 ; People v Chapple, 38 NY2d at 115 ).

2015The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there was a “definite, pronounced break in questioning sufficient to return the defendant to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning” (People v Sedunova, 83 AD3d 965, 967 [2011]; see People v Celleri, 29 AD3d 707, 708 [2006]; People v Johnson, 79 AD2d 617, 618 [1980]; see also People v Paulman, 5 NY3d at 131 ; People v Chapple, 38 NY2d at 115 ).

2008While the parent or legal guardian of a juvenile may invoke the right to counsel on the child’s behalf (see People v Mitchell, 2 NY3d 272, 276 [2004]), there is nothing that requires it, and we find no compelling evidence that DSS acted contrary to respondent’s interests in permitting him to speak with the police. * Viewing the totality of the circumstances surrounding the Miranda waiver and subsequent confession, we conclude that Family Court correctly declined to suppress respondent’s statements as involuntary.